The latest and most detailed climate model of the continental U.S. predicts temperatures so extreme by the end of the century they could substantially disrupt the country’s economy and infrastructure. The climate simulation, churned out by supercomputers at Purdue University, factors in dynamic environmental variables previously unaccounted for and analyzes them at a resolution twice as fine as previous models. The results indicate an increase in heat, heavier rainfalls and shorter winters, which could strain water resources for people and crops and cause a catastrophic loss of life and property, among other things.
“Climate change is going to be even more dramatic than we previously thought,” says Noah Diffenbaugh, who reported his team’s findings in the October 17 online edition of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. Until now, the fastest computers crunching climate data and using the most sophisticated computer codes have produced only a grainy image of the country’s climate picture. For one thing, the codes–which incorporate data describing hundreds of natural variables such as ocean currents, cloud formation, vegetation cover, and the amount of greenhouse gases expected to exist in the atmosphere–have left out such factors as soil moisture, how much sun snow-cover reflects, and to what extent mountains thwart weather systems. What is more, previous models calculated the data by breaking the country into a grid of 50-kilometer squares, a resolution that can miss climatic nuances.Diffenbaugh’s model incorporates the additional natural variables and does so at a resolution of 25-kilometer grid squares. The smaller squares provide a higher resolution and a better picture of what is in store for the country by the end of the century. Assuming that human-generated greenhouse gases attain concentrations more than twice their current level, Diffenbaugh’s model predicts several events: the desert Southwest will have more frequent and intense heat waves, combined with less precipitation during the summer; the Gulf Coast will grow hotter and experience heavier rainfalls in short time periods; the Northeast will suffer under longer, hotter summers; overall, the continental U.S. will undergo a warming trend that will reduce the length of winter.
The Purdue Report parallels the work from the Max Planck Institute I posted, last week. Although specific to the US, I didn’t think it would result in such expanded coverage.
To confirm the model’s accuracy, Diffenbaugh ran it using weather data from between 1961 and 1985 and compared the prediction with what actually occurred. “The model performed admirably, which tells us we’ve got a good understanding of how to represent the physical world in terms of computer code,” he comments.
Weather-related extremes such as floods, hurricanes and heat waves have lead to loss of lives and property. Hurricane Katrina alone claimed more than 1,000 lives and Congress has already set aside $62.5 billion for relief and rebuilding efforts. One heat wave during the summer of 1995 took 1,100 lives and the government spent $88 billion between 1988 and 1993 on three weather-related disasters (drought and flooding in the Midwest and Hurricane Andrew). Although the new results are alarming, they are not meant to create an alarmist view, Diffenbaugh explains. Rather they forecast a scenario that should be taken under serious consideration.
I expect that True Believers will continue in place. Those interested in a more thorough examination of the science should visit here.
How come the people who are so staunch on Environmentalism, are the same one who say we should embrace change.
Unfortunately those people don’t change…. they will just turn red.
Arghh! Is this lunacy never going end? Their precious computer models can’t accurately predict what is going to happen next month, but we are supposed to believe they are competent to predict what will happen 100 years from now?
I am not impressed with their claim that using data from 1961 to 1985 they were able to match well with what actually occured. They did this by adjusting the “forcings” for the variables they believed important until it DID match what actually happened.
If this computer code really does work as claimed, then why can’t they predict the amount of snowfall Denver will receive this December? If that level of refinement is beyond its cabability, then how about the amount of moisture the entire state of Colorado will receive next month? Surely a model capable of predicting the USA climate in 2100 can tell us, within a 2% margin of error, the actual precip Colorado will receive for November 2005.
OR better yet, which one of these computer models actually predicted the severity of hurricanes for THIS year?
This is very disturbing news!!!
You guys are all off base! The computers don’t lie! They can provide any data any researcher is attempting to validate when properly manipulated.
Just because we can’t predict other completely random events such as weather or the stock market or the outcome to sporting games does not mean that we can’t develop a completely unreliable method of determining what will absolutely happen in the possible future.
This is the real deal, I am 100% certain that this model has a 0 to 100% chance of being right, you read it here first!
Just an aside, I hear the computer(s) that completed this simulation are placing huge short orders on Microsoft……
True Believers don’t understand the difference between weather forecasts and climate, Paul. It’s like, for example, day trading vs. investing. It’s deciding on a procedure or practice that requires science — and using politics instead.
This is the same-same-same as always… I have come to believe the scientific community is just lost when it comes to the environment. The ONLY message they have anymore is “We’re all going to die!” Why is that? It’s obvious to me that somewhere, at some point a researcher made a choice in direction and his entire ilk followed blindly. Come on, its been 40+ years of “in 10 years we’ll be wearing gas masks”.
Talk about crying wolf. The ONLY thing that disturbs me about the climate is the fact that “scientists” are causing all of us to become numb to real and useful information. Distractions, all of it… You can’t tell me if I should carry and umbrella but you can predict the weather for 100 years??? 100 years… Really? I take the previous poster’s comment because it completely decimates your entire study ( “Their precious computer models can’t accurately predict what is going to happen next month, but we are supposed to believe they are competent to predict what will happen 100 years from now?“ )
End result is this; if you want to go by your science, fine… We’ll do that. The study is flawed in that you chose to use a model that you tweaked (Forced) to mimic data between 1961 and 1985.. I think I was still using “regular” gas back then and didn’t know what fuel injection was. Vehicles, factories, construction, manufacturing, the Internet alone have made and continue to make huge contributions to slow and eliminate many of the pollutants since 1985… Ridiculous… Ludicrous…
This is akin to me reporting (in 1985) that the world will be overrun with newspapers in 40 years… Seen a newspaper lately? Make a prediction for next week, we’ll check up on you then, if you’re 100%, we’ll try two weeks next time…
Watching the weather channel and they can’t predict where Wilma will go in the next 5 days and yet they can tell me where it will be 100 years from now.
Amazing!!!!
Can these guys tell me the magic numbers on the roulette wheels in Vegas?? Would really appreciate it.
Computers — garabage in-garbage out
Rob
“True Believers don’t understand the difference between weather forecasts and climate…”
But that’s just the point, Ed; environmentalists want you to believe there is a difference. There isn’t. Both weather forecasts and climate forecasts depend upon processing historical data, inputting current conditions, and then predicting conditions for “tomorrow”. Tomorrow’s data is then treated as “current conditions” for input into predictions for two days from now, then repeat for as long as you like…
Both systems are chaotic, meaning a very small change in initial conditions (or assumptions, in the case of climate models) creates dramatic changes in predicted conditions as you project into the future. In the case of climate models, unless they accurately predicted the severity of hurricanes for this year (without retroactively fudging the data), then they can’t account for the degree of rainfall received by the Eastern half of the United States. (Soil moisture is one of those “important” variables, isn’t it? Or did the Purdue scientists mention that parameter just to impress us?) So when the predicted conditions for this year are treated as “current” for next year’s prediction, the error gets compounded.
And we are supposed to believe they can continue to compound these errors for a 100-year period and still make a meaningful prediction?
Reflect on what you’re saying! You have every right to pick and choose what science to accept or reject. Rationally, that decision is made for comparable scientific reasons — not “common sense” founded in years of what? Movies and journalism?
John has suggested I do an omnibus piece covering the whole of the topic. Sooner or later, I must. So far, folks aren’t even differentiating between weather and climate. That’s like confusing brush clearing and a history of forest fires. They’re related; but, not necessarily dependent on each other.
(putting fingers in ears)La, La, La, La, I don’t hear anything! We don’t have to change anything. La, La, La, You can’t predict anything! La, La, La, La, My SUV is not a problem, La, La, La, La, The Intelligent Designer would never have designed a system that wouldn’t compensate for anything humans could do to harm it, La, La, La, La, I don’t hear anything, La, La, La, La, science can’t prove anything!(removing fingers from ears)
Huh?
When are those hockey stick scientists going to release their data and methods?
What is the Farmer’s Almanac prediction for 100 years from now? Oh, I forgot they only predict a year in advance and are at times better than our regular forecasters whose forecast will change several times within a week.
Well, since this is fact, I feel no guilt in destroying the earth now. Thanks environmentalists!
No, Ed, you don’t have a “right to pick and choose what science to accept or reject.” Science must account for *all* data, or it isn’t science.
Rejecting the climate model predictions isn’t a rejection of science. Until climate model predictions can be measured for accuracy against real data, there is no scientific basis for accepting the predictions. And no, fudging the variables until they match the period from 1961 to 1985 is not sufficient measurement of its accuracy. They claim to have valid results for 2100, so what result did they get for 2005 and did that result include category 5 hurricanes for the Gulf?
Forgive me, but my “common sense” is based upon mathematics, physics, and engineering — plus 15 years of working in the environmental field. So don’t try to snow me with environmental “jingoism” because I’ve seen first hand what passes as “science” from that crowd.
Fortunately, Smith, your hangups about “other” sciences doesn’t infect the main body of scientists. Even those who may disagree with you. I’d love to see your notes on string theory and how you malign the “other” camp — whichever it may be.
My remarks about “which science” are founded in local discussions on the topic which include a broad range of for-real scientists who earn their living at science. The only proponent of “we aren’t responsible for nuthin'” is very good at it. He really is a climatologist. But, he founds his whole analysis on paleoclimatology. The sources, I’ve referenced in recent posts are also climatologists, ranging from the Max Planck Institute [a few decent physicists and mathematicians on board] and Purdue [also not exactly math slouches] — who read the changes in Earth and atmosphere as being dramatically more dynamic than any Paleolithic parallels. That should means something to a mathematician.
I ALL take their work seriously and worth investigating — and don’t stuff any of them into little boxes as do those who still, apparently, feel this is a political cause. The only people who have made a religion out of this topic are those who won’t and don’t pay attention to science at all. And they’re mostly politicians.
Ed,
I don’t think these posts are mixing science and politics. We are saying not all science is created equal. Just because a study is peer reviewed doesn’t mean it’s true. Some experiments can be repeated and properly verified in the real world, and some cannot.
I would even say this means that the theory of evolution and most of archeology rest on softer ground than some of the physical and chemical sciences, because you can’t go backward and forward in time to verify predictions and conclusions. (But obviously this science, any science, is much better than religiously inspired ideas about the universe.)
The scientific method says you come up with a hypothesis, then you test that hypothesis through experiment.
A computer simulation is not an experiment, especially with regards to the weather and climate.
I think the simulation and code underlying it is the hypothesis, and whether the predictions come true is the experiment, which just involves waiting.
Perhaps they could come up with ways that would better separate the climate predictions from the verification, and speed it up. But the point is that meteorology doesn’t have a good track record if it can’t even do this with short-term weather.
There’s also a lot of science coming in that says many of the phenomenon attributed to Global Warming are actually tied to cycles of ocean temperature, El Nino, ice ages, etc. (I lived with a climatologist who worked on this, even though he was pro-global climate change). I think most people agree that the mechanism of Global Warming is real, and is occuring, but how much it’s changing things, and how it will affect us is not clearly proved or demonstrated.
Especially not clearly enough to make people want to slow economic growth and energy usage to go back to 1990 levels. Kyoto is much to ambitious and even the signatories aren’t making much progress in reducing their emissions. They should try a less amibitious plan that spans over 50 years, and stop with the hyperbole.
The only people who have made a religion out of this topic are those who won’t and don’t pay attention to science at all. And they’re mostly politicians.
Exactly, the left and greens have gone so overboard with this stuff, its ridiculous. Don’t look at what European governments say and sign, look at what they actually do. Based on the current evidence, you’d have to be religious about it to propose Kyoto.